Final answer:
The naturalistic fallacy assumes moral values can be derived from natural facts; a fallacy addressed by philosophers like G. E. Moore and David Hume in terms of the is-ought problem. The scientific perspective relates to challenges in justifying moral claims based on empirical observations.
Step-by-step explanation:
The naturalistic fallacy is a philosophical concept and an error in reasoning that assumes one can derive moral judgments or values (what humans ought to do) directly from natural facts (what is). The idea was notably discussed by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his book Principia Ethica, where he criticizes attempts to define 'good' in terms of natural properties.
From a scientific perspective, the naturalistic fallacy is related to the is-ought problem, famously addressed by David Hume. Hume highlighted the difficulty in justifying moral statements (ought) based on empirical observations (is). Examples of this fallacy occur when individuals argue about human behavior by referencing natural occurrences in the animal kingdom, such as using animal monogamy to justify human monogamous practices.
Within scientific and philosophical debates, naturalism promotes that meaningful inquiry should focus on physical entities and the natural forces governing them, while supernaturalism accepts the existence of entities beyond the natural realm. The naturalistic fallacy differs from naturalism as a philosophical standpoint, which holds that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural forces and laws without resorting to supernatural or metaphysical explanations.